The purpose of this Act is to give effect to certain provisions of the deeds of settlement that settle the historical claims of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau.

The provisions of this Act take effect on the settlement date unless a provision states otherwise.

Before the date on which a provision takes effect, a person may prepare or sign a document or do anything else that is required—

This Act binds the Crown.

This section is a guide to the overall scheme and effect of this Act, but does not affect the interpretation or application of the other provisions of this Act or the deeds of settlement.

This Part—

Part 2 provides for cultural redress, including—

Part 3 provides for commercial redress, including—

There are 4 schedules, as follows:

Section 8 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

Sections 9 and 10 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō.

Section 11 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

Sections 12 and 13 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Kuia in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia.

Section 14 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

Sections 15 and 16 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Rangitāne o Wairau in the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau.

The historical account set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō (Ngāti Apa) is summarised as follows:

Ngāti Apa have resided in the northern South Island for many generations. At 1820 Ngāti Apa occupied and used resources in the outer Marlborough Sounds at Anamahanga (Port Gore), Waimea, Whakatu (Nelson), Te Tai Aorere (Golden Bay), Te Tai Tapu (Tasman Bay, Whanganui and the northern West Coast) and down to the Kawatiri region. In the 1820s and 1830s iwi from the North Island invaded and settled in the northern South Island. Although Ngāti Apa no longer had exclusive possession of all their territory they retained their tribal structures, chiefly lines and ancestral connections to the land. There was also opportunity for the recovery of status and the revival of rights as British rule began to take effect after 1840.

In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with Māori that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. Ngāti Apa were not consulted by the Company. The validity of the Company’s purchases was investigated in 1844 by a Crown-appointed Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the Company had made a limited purchase of land in the northern South Island and recommended a grant of 151 000 acres. The Crown failed to investigate the rights of Ngāti Apa before granting land to the Company. The Company also made an additional payment to Te Tau Ihu Māori in 1844. Ngāti Apa did not directly receive a share of this payment for their interests or a share in the Nelson Tenths reserves that were set aside from the land granted to the Company.

Between 1847 and 1856 the Crown sought to purchase most of the remaining Māori land in the northern South Island. Despite the Crown being aware that Ngāti Apa claimed rights in some of the areas that were being purchased, Ngāti Apa were not included in any of the transactions. Consequently Ngāti Apa, in contrast to all the other northern South Island iwi, received no payment for the alienation of their land, and no reserves were set aside for them.

Ngāti Apa received some recognition in the 1860 Arahura (West Coast) purchase. The Ngāti Apa rangatira Pūaha Te Rangi was a signatory to the deed. Ngāti Apa received a small share of the purchase price and several occupation reserves were set aside for them. The reserves were insufficient for the present and future needs of the iwi. In the first half of the twentieth century Ngāti Apa obtained a beneficial share in several endowment reserves on the West Coast. For various reasons, including inefficient Māori and Public Trustee administration, Ngāti Apa did not obtain significant economic benefit from these reserves. During the twentieth century Ngāti Apa occupation and endowment reserves were reduced through public works and scenery preservation takings and sales by their owners.

In 1977 the remaining reserves on the West Coast were transferred to the Mawhera Incorporation. This included the Westport town sections in which Ngāti Apa held a nine-tenths interest. The 1973 Commission of Inquiry into Māori Reserved Lands had earlier put forward two options for the future management of the Westport sections—if the owners desired, the lands might be included in an incorporation, together with other West Coast reserves; or two owner representatives might work with the Māori Trustee to determine the future administration of the sections. The Crown did not consult separately with the Ngāti Apa owners and did not offer them the option of working with the Māori Trustee. Following the transfer of the Westport and other Ngāti Apa reserves to Mawhera the Ngāti Apa owners became shareholders in the Incorporation but no longer controlled the land and could not utilise it for tribal or community purposes.

In 1883 and 1892 the Native Land Court investigated the ownership of land that had been excluded from Crown purchases and the Nelson Tenths reserves. Ngāti Apa made several claims before the Court. In the Te Tai Tapu and Nelson Tenths ownership investigations the Court deemed that Ngāti Apa did not have rights and they were excluded from ownership. In 1889 the Court granted Ngāti Apa two small reserves at Anamahanga (Port Gore). When the larger of the reserves was sold in 1929 the remaining reserve of 5 acres was the only land remaining in Ngāti Apa ownership outside the West Coast.

By the late nineteenth century, Ngāti Apa were landless. The Crown attempted to alleviate their position through the provision of “Landless Natives Reserves”. Hoani Mahuika of Ngāti Apa petitioned the Crown to provide additional land in the Kawatiri region. Ngāti Apa individuals were allocated land at Whakapoai on the West Coast but the Crown never granted them title to the land. Ultimately the reserves scheme did nothing to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Apa in the northern South Island.

The text of the acknowledgements set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō (Ngāti Apa) is as follows:

The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to deal with the long-standing grievances of Ngāti Apa in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue. The Crown further acknowledges that at relevant times it has failed to carry out an adequate inquiry into the nature and extent of Ngāti Apa customary rights and interests. This meant that the Crown failed to recognise or protect Ngāti Apa rights and interests to their full extent, which resulted in prejudice to the iwi. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately investigate the customary rights of Ngāti Apa before granting land to the New Zealand Company. As a result the Crown did not consult, negotiate with, and compensate Ngāti Apa for their rights in those lands. The Crown failed to actively protect the interests of Ngāti Apa and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown failed to adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Apa when it arranged the completion of the New Zealand Company’s Nelson purchase and did not establish a process in a timely manner that ensured Ngāti Apa received consideration, including a share in the tenths, for this purchase. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that its failure to adequately investigate the rights of Ngāti Apa at the time of the Spain Commission and protect the interests of Ngāti Apa when completing the Company’s Nelson purchase had an ongoing effect on Ngāti Apa. From this point, the ability of Ngāti Apa to represent and protect their interests, including at pivotal Native Land Court cases in 1883 and 1892, and to maintain their connections to the whenua, was significantly impacted. The Crown acknowledges that this negative impact has continued down to the present day.

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to investigate and recognise Ngāti Apa customary rights or deal with the iwi when it embarked on a series of purchases in Te Tau Ihu between 1847 and 1856. Ngāti Apa were afforded minimal recognition in the 1860 Arahura purchase. The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown acknowledges that these failures were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that in purchasing almost the entire Te Tau Ihu region, Ngāti Apa were the only iwi in Te Tau Ihu the Crown did not sign a purchase deed with or provide with reserves.

The Crown acknowledges that Ngāti Apa received little economic return from the endowment reserves granted to them on the West Coast.

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately consult the Ngāti Apa owners of West Coast reserves between Kahurangi Point and Westport about the future management of those lands. This included failing to present the Westport town section owners with the full range of options recommended by the 1973 Commission of Inquiry into Maori Reserved Land. All Ngāti Apa’s remaining West Coast reserves were subsequently vested in the Greymouth-based Mawhera Incorporation. Ngāti Apa owners became shareholders in the Incorporation, but lost control of their lands. This gave rise to a grievance which is still keenly felt by Ngāti Apa today.

The Crown acknowledges that members of Ngāti Apa were never issued title to land allocated to them at Whakapoai under the “landless natives” scheme. The Crown’s failure to effectively implement the scheme meant that it did nothing to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Apa in Te Tau Ihu. This failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that its actions have impacted on the ability of Ngāti Apa to access many of their traditional resources, including the rivers, lakes, forests, and wetlands. The Crown also acknowledges that Ngāti Apa have lost control of many of their significant sites, including wahi tapu, and that this has had an ongoing impact on their physical and spiritual relationship with the land.

The Crown acknowledges that by 1900 Ngāti Apa were a landless iwi. The Crown failed to ensure that Ngāti Apa were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs and this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō (Ngāti Apa) is as follows:

The Crown makes the following apology to Ngāti Apa, and to their ancestors and descendants.

The Crown is deeply sorry that it has not always fulfilled its obligations to Ngāti Apa under the Treaty of Waitangi and unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Apa for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles acknowledged above.

The Crown profoundly regrets its failure since 1840 to appropriately acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Apa. The Crown’s failure to recognise Ngāti Apa in any land purchases in Te Tau Ihu quickly left Ngāti Apa landless and almost wrote the iwi out of the history of Te Tau Ihu. The Crown is deeply sorry that its failure to recognise and protect the interests of Ngāti Apa has had a devastating impact on the social and economic well-being and development of Ngāti Apa.

The Crown regrets and apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions, which have had a damaging impact on the social and traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Apa, their autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, and their access to customary resources and sites of significance.

Through this apology the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs, restore its honour, and begin the process of healing. The Crown looks forward to building a new relationship with Ngāti Apa that is based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The historical account set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia is summarised as follows:

Ngāti Kuia have resided in Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Maui (the northern South Island or the prow of the waka of Maui) for generations. By 1820 Ngāti Kuia were established primarily in the Kaituna, Te Hora, Te Hoiere (the Pelorus area), Rangitoto (D’Urville Island), Whangarae, Whakapuaka, and Whakatū (Nelson) districts. In the 1820s and 1830s iwi from the North Island invaded and settled in Te Tau Ihu. Although Ngāti Kuia no longer had exclusive possession of all their territory they retained their tribal structures, chiefly lines, and ancestral connections to the land. There was also opportunity for the recovery of status and the revival of rights as British rule began to take effect after 1840.

In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with Māori that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. Ngāti Kuia were not consulted by the Company. The validity of the Company’s purchases was investigated in 1844 by a Crown-appointed Commissioner. The Commissioner deemed that the Company had made a limited purchase of land in Te Tau Ihu and recommended a grant of 151 000 acres. However, the Crown failed to investigate the rights of Ngāti Kuia before granting land to the Company. The Company also made an additional payment to Te Tau Ihu Māori in 1844. Ngāti Kuia did not directly receive a share of this payment for their interests or a share in the Nelson Tenths reserves that were set aside from the land granted to the Company.

Between 1847 and 1856 the Crown sought to purchase most of the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu. In 1853 the Crown signed with other iwi the Te Waipounamu deed that purported to purchase all remaining Māori land in the region. Ngāti Kuia were not present at negotiations or signatories to the deed. Under the deed a share of the purchase money was to be distributed among resident Te Tau Ihu Māori. In 1854 Ngāti Kuia at Te Hoiere disputed the idea the Waipounamu deed had acquired their interests in the land and demanded a fair payment directly from the Government. The Crown did not meet with resident Māori to finalise the Te Waipounamu purchase until 1856. The Crown used the 1853 deed to pressure resident Māori, including Ngāti Kuia, to agree to the alienation of their land. In 1856 Ngāti Kuia signed a deed with the Crown and were paid £100 for their interests in Te Tau Ihu and granted reserves in the Te Hoiere district.

The 790 acres of reserves provided to Ngāti Kuia were insufficient for the iwi to either maintain their customary practices of resource use or develop effectively in the new economy. As a result Ngāti Kuia became economically marginalised. In 1889 the Native Land Court determined ownership of the reserves granted to Ngāti Kuia. Title to the land was given to individual Ngāti Kuia rather than to iwi or hapū collectives. Over time the reserves became increasingly fragmented and uneconomic as individuals sold their shares and as titles became crowded through succession. By the end of the twentieth century Ngāti Kuia retained less than 230 acres of their reserves.

In 1883 and 1892 the Native Land Court investigated the ownership of land that had been excluded from Crown purchases and the Nelson Tenths reserves. Ngāti Kuia made several claims before the Court. In the Te Tai Tapu and Nelson Tenths ownership investigations the Court deemed that Ngāti Kuia did not have rights and they were excluded from ownership. Ngāti Kuia protested unsuccessfully against the Court’s Nelson Tenths decision.

Ngāti Kuia also made claims to islands in Te Hoiere Sound they considered had not been sold. These included the Tītī Islands, which were an important mahinga kai (harvesting area) for Ngāti Kuia. From 1918 Ngāti Kuia, under an agreement with the Crown, were able to harvest tītī (muttonbirds) and other resources from the islands. From 1960 the Crown denied Ngāti Kuia permission to land on the islands owing to declining numbers of tītī. Ngāti Kuia expressed strong opposition to this decision.

By the late nineteenth century, Ngāti Kuia were landless. Ngāti Kuia submitted a petition to the Government requesting additional land to live on and described themselves as “the poorest tribe under the Heavens”. The Crown attempted to alleviate their position through the provision of “Landless Natives Reserves”. The reserves, however, were in isolated locations, of poor quality, and generally unable to be developed for effective economic use. Ngāti Kuia were also allocated land on Stewart Island but the Crown never granted them title to the land. Ultimately the reserves granted did little to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Kuia in Te Tau Ihu.

The text of the acknowledgements set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia is as follows:

The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to deal with the long-standing grievances of Ngāti Kuia in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue. The Crown further acknowledges that at relevant times it has failed to carry out an adequate inquiry into the nature and extent of Ngāti Kuia customary rights and interests across Te Tau Ihu. This meant that the Crown failed to recognise or protect Ngāti Kuia rights and interests to their full extent, which resulted in prejudice to the iwi. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately investigate the customary rights of Ngāti Kuia before granting land to the New Zealand Company. As a result the Crown did not consult, negotiate with, and compensate Ngāti Kuia for their rights in those lands. Consequently the Crown failed to actively protect the interests of Ngāti Kuia and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown failed to adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Kuia when it arranged the completion of the New Zealand Company’s Nelson purchase and did not establish a process in a timely manner that ensured Ngāti Kuia received the full consideration, including a share in the tenths, for this purchase. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that its failure to adequately investigate the rights of Ngāti Kuia and include the iwi at the time of the Spain Commission and protect the interests of Ngāti Kuia when completing the New Zealand Company’s Nelson purchase had an ongoing effect on Ngāti Kuia. From this point, the ability of Ngāti Kuia to represent and protect their interests, including at pivotal Native Land Court cases in 1883 and 1892, and to maintain their connections to the whenua, was significantly affected. The Crown acknowledges that this negative impact has continued down to the present day.

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to recognise the full nature and extent of Ngāti Kuia customary rights when it embarked on a series of purchases from 1847:

The Crown acknowledges that these failures were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that for Ngāti Kuia the 1856 deed of sale with the Crown represented more than a transfer of land. The Crown further acknowledges that the collateral benefits Ngāti Kuia expected in entering into the Te Waipounamu sale agreement with the Crown were not always realised.

The Crown acknowledges that during the late nineteenth century Ngāti Kuia made several claims to the Crown for islands and land areas they did not believe had been sold in the Waipounamu transaction. This included the Tītī Islands, which were an important mahinga kai source for Ngāti Kuia. The Crown’s 1933 agreement with Ngāti Kuia over harvesting from the Tītī Islands enabled the iwi to exercise a kaitiaki role over their use of the resource. The Crown acknowledges its decision in the mid-twentieth century to withhold permission for Ngāti Kuia to harvest tītī from these islands has been an ongoing source of frustration for the iwi.

The Crown acknowledges that the operation and impact of the native land laws on the reserves granted to Ngāti Kuia, in particular the awarding of land to individual Ngāti Kuia rather than to the iwi or its hapū, made those lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. This further contributed to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Kuia. The Crown failed to take adequate steps to protect those structures and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that under the “landless natives” scheme—

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to effectively implement the scheme designed to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Kuia in Te Tau Ihu. This failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that its actions have impacted on the ability of Ngāti Kuia to access many of their traditional resources, including the rivers, lakes, forests, and wetlands. The Crown also acknowledges that Ngāti Kuia has lost control of many of their significant sites, including wahi tapu, and that this has had an ongoing impact on their physical and spiritual relationship with the land.

The Crown acknowledges that by 1900 Ngāti Kuia were landless. The Crown failed to ensure that Ngāti Kuia were left with sufficient land for their immediate and future needs and this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia is as follows:

The Crown recognises the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of Ngāti Kuia over several generations in pursuit of their grievances against the Crown and makes this apology to Ngāti Kuia, to their ancestors and descendants.

The Crown is deeply sorry that it has not always fulfilled its obligations to Ngāti Kuia under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Crown profoundly regrets its long-standing failure to appropriately acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Kuia. The Crown is deeply sorry that its failure to protect the interests of Ngāti Kuia when purchasing their land in Te Tau Ihu rapidly left Ngāti Kuia landless. Its failure to provide Ngāti Kuia with sufficient reserves in Te Tau Ihu marginalised them from the benefits of economic development in the region.

The Crown regrets and apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions, which have had a damaging impact on the social and traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Kuia, their autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, and their access to customary resources and significant sites.

The Crown unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Kuia for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. Through this apology the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs, restore its honour, and begin the process of healing. The Crown looks forward to building a new relationship with Ngāti Kuia that is based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The historical account set out in the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau (Rangitāne) is summarised as follows:

Rangitāne have resided in the northern South Island for many generations. Rangitāne occupied and used resources within a territory stretching from the Waiau-toa (Clarence) River in the south to the Wairau (Marlborough), including the Nelson Lakes, and north to Kaituna and the Marlborough Sounds and west into the Whakatu (Nelson) area. In the 1820s and 1830s iwi from the North Island invaded and settled in the northern South Island. Although Rangitāne no longer had exclusive possession of all their territory they retained their tribal structures, chiefly lines and ancestral connections to the land. There was also opportunity for the recovery of status and the revival of rights after 1840 as British rule began to take effect. In 1840 their rangatira Ihaia Kaikoura signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Horahora Kākahu Island in Port Underwood.

In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with Māori that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. Rangitāne were not consulted by the Company. The validity of the Company’s purchases was investigated in 1844 by a Crown-appointed Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the Company had made a limited purchase of land in the northern South Island and recommended a grant of 151 000 acres. However, the Crown failed to investigate the rights of Rangitāne before granting land to the Company. The Company also made an additional payment to Te Tau Ihu Māori in 1844. Rangitāne did not directly receive a share of this payment for their interests or a share in the Nelson Tenths reserves that were set aside from the land granted to the Company.

Between 1847 and 1856 the Crown sought to purchase the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu. In 1847 the Crown purchased the Wairau district from three North Island chiefs. The Crown did not identify other right-holders in the region and the rights of Rangitāne were ignored. In 1853 the Crown signed with other iwi the Te Waipounamu deed that purported to purchase all remaining Māori land in the region. Rangitāne were not present at negotiations or signatories to the deed. Under the deed a share of the purchase money was to be distributed among resident Te Tau Ihu Māori, including Rangitāne. The Crown did not meet with resident Māori to finalise the Te Waipounamu purchase until 1856. The Crown used the 1853 deed to pressure resident Māori, including Rangitāne, to agree to the alienation of their land. In 1856 Rangitāne were paid £100 for their interests in Te Tau Ihu and granted reserves in the Wairau district. Land south of the Wairau River was not sold by Rangitāne in 1856.

Despite the Crown purchase agent, Donald McLean, considering that an appropriate reserve in the Wairau comprised a block of around 13 400 acres, the reserves finally established by the Crown were wholly inadequate. The two reserves established—the Pukatea and Wairau—were shared between three iwi and were insufficient for Rangitāne to either maintain their customary practices of resource use or developed effectively in the new economy. As a result Rangitāne became economically marginalised. In 1889 the reserves granted to Rangitāne and other iwi were investigated by the Native Land Court. Title to the land was given to individual Rangitāne rather than to iwi or hapū collectives. Over time the reserves became increasingly fragmented and uneconomic as individuals sold their shares and as titles became crowded through succession.

In 1883 and 1892 the Native Land Court investigated the ownership of land that had been excluded from Crown purchases and the Nelson Tenths reserves. Rangitāne made several claims before the Court. In the Te Tai Tapu and Nelson Tenths ownership investigations the Court deemed that Rangitāne did not have rights and they were excluded from ownership. Rangitāne also made several claims for land they did not think had been included in the 1856 transaction but these claims were dismissed by the Court.

The Pukatea reserve was mainly leased by the Crown. Because of its isolation and poor quality it provided only a small return to its owners. Most of Rangitāne’s reserved land at Pukatea was purchased by the Crown in the 1950s in order to create a recreation and scenic reserve.

The Wairau reserve was subject to frequent flooding and from the 1930s, at the request of Rangitāne and other Wairau Māori, it was included in a land development scheme. The scheme was ineffective at preventing flooding and the reserve became encumbered with debt. The Wairau reserve was eventually released from the scheme between 1955 and 1970. The reserve was still subject to serious flooding at least until 1960.

By the late nineteenth century, Rangitāne were landless. The Crown attempted to alleviate their position through the provision of “Landless Natives Reserves”. The reserves, however, were in isolated locations, of poor quality and generally unable to be developed for effective economic use. Rangitāne were also allocated land on Stewart Island but the Crown never granted them title to the land. Ultimately the reserves did little to alleviate the landless position of Rangitāne in the northern South Island.

The text of the acknowledgements set out in the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau (Rangitāne) is as follows:

The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to deal with the long-standing grievances of Rangitāne in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue. The Crown further acknowledges that at relevant times it has failed to carry out an adequate inquiry into the nature and extent of Rangitāne customary rights and interests. This meant that the Crown failed to recognise or protect Rangitāne rights and interests to their full extent, and resulted in prejudice to the iwi. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown’s failure to investigate the customary rights of Rangitāne before granting land to the New Zealand Company meant that it failed to actively protect the interests of Rangitāne in those lands and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown failed to protect the interests of Rangitāne when it arranged the completion of the New Zealand Company’s Nelson purchase and did not establish a process in a timely manner that ensured Rangitāne received the full consideration, including a share in the tenths, for this purchase. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that its failure to investigate the rights of Rangitāne at the time of the Spain Commission and protect the interests of Rangitāne when completing the Company’s Nelson purchase had an ongoing effect on Rangitāne. From this point, the ability of Rangitāne to represent and protect their interests, including at pivotal Native Land Court cases in 1883 and 1892, and to maintain their connections to the whenua, was significantly impacted. The Crown acknowledges that this negative impact has continued down to the present day.

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to recognise the full nature and extent of Rangitāne customary rights when it embarked on a series of purchases from 1847:

The Crown acknowledges that these failures were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the collateral benefits Rangitāne expected in entering into the Te Waipounamu sale agreement with the Crown were not always realised.

The Crown acknowledges that the operation and impact of the native land laws on the reserves granted to Rangitāne, in particular the awarding of land to individual Rangitāne rather than to iwi or hapū, made those lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. This further contributed to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures of Rangitāne. The Crown failed to take adequate steps to protect those structures and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the flood-prone nature of the Wairau reserve limited its usefulness. The Crown further acknowledges that the development scheme which operated on the reserve during the mid-twentieth century was largely ineffective in alleviating the flooding problem and meant Rangitāne lost effective control of their land for a period.

The Crown acknowledges that owing to its isolation and poor quality the Pukatea reserve provided little economic return to the Rangitāne owners. The Crown further acknowledges that considerable public pressure contributed to the decision of Rangitāne to sell their share in Pukatea 3 to the Crown in 1955 and that Rangitāne received little benefit from this transaction.

The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to effectively implement the scheme designed to alleviate the landless position of Rangitāne in Te Tau Ihu. This failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that by 1900 Rangitāne were landless. The Crown failed to ensure that Rangitāne were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs and this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau (Rangitāne) is as follows:

The Crown makes the following apology to Rangitāne, and to their ancestors and descendants.

On 17 June 1840 the Rangitāne rangatira Ihaia Kaikoura signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Horahora-kākahu, Port Underwood. The Crown is deeply sorry that it has not fulfilled its obligations to Rangitāne under the Treaty of Waitangi and unreservedly apologises to Rangitāne for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles acknowledged above.

The Crown profoundly regrets its long-standing failure to appropriately acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Rangitāne. The Crown did not recognise Rangitāne when it purchased the Wairau district in 1847 and recognition of Rangitāne mana in the Te Waipounamu purchase was belated. The Crown is deeply sorry that its acts and omissions quickly left Rangitāne landless and this has had a devastating impact on the economic, social, and cultural well-being and development of Rangitāne.

The Crown regrets and apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions, which have had a damaging impact on the social and traditional structures of Rangitāne, their autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, and their access to customary resources and significant sites.

With this apology the Crown seeks to atone for its past wrongs and begin the process of healing. It looks forward to re-establishing its relationship with Rangitāne based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

It is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of this Act are interpreted in a manner that best furthers the agreements expressed in the deeds of settlement.

In this Act, unless the context requires another meaning,—

In this Act, a reference to a transfer or vesting of any land (being the fee simple estate in the land) to or in any trustees includes the transfer or vesting of an undivided share of the fee simple estate in the land.

Subsection (2) applies unless the context requires another meaning.

In this Act, unless the context requires another meaning,—

In this Act,—

In this section,—

In this Act, historical claims—

The historical claims are every claim that a settlement iwi or a representative entity had on or before the settlement date, or may have after the settlement date, and that—

The historical claims include—

The historical claims include—

The historical claims include—

However, the historical claims do not include—

A claim may be a historical claim whether or not the claim has arisen or been considered, researched, registered, notified, or made on or before the settlement date.

The historical claims are settled.

The settlement of the historical claims is final and, on and from the settlement date, the Crown is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities in respect of those claims.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not limit the acknowledgements expressed in, or the provisions of, the deeds of settlement.

Despite any other enactment or rule of law, on and from the settlement date, no court, tribunal, or other judicial body has jurisdiction (including the jurisdiction to inquire or further inquire, or to make a finding or recommendation) in respect of—

Subsection (4) does not exclude the jurisdiction of a court, tribunal, or other judicial body in respect of the interpretation or implementation of the deeds of settlement or this Act.

This section amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

In Schedule 3, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order “Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Act 2014, section 22(4) and (5)”.

The enactments listed in subsection (2) do not apply—

The enactments are—

The chief executive of LINZ must issue to the Registrar-General 1 or more certificates that specify each computer register for the Nelson Land District or Marlborough Land District that has a memorial recorded under any enactment listed in section 24(2).

The chief executive of LINZ must issue a certificate under subsection (1) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the settlement date.

Each certificate must state that it is issued under this section.

The Registrar-General must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a certificate issued under subsection (1), remove any memorial recorded under an enactment listed in section 24(2) from each computer register identified in the certificate.

No rule of law or provisions of an Act limiting the duration of a trust, including section 16 of the Trusts Act 2019,—

However, if a settlement trust is, or becomes, a charitable trust, the trust may continue indefinitely under section 16(6)(a) of the Trusts Act 2019.

The chief executive of the Ministry of Justice must make copies of the deeds of settlement available—

If a provision in this Act has the same effect as a provision in 1 or both of the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014 and the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Act 2014, the provisions must be given effect to only once as if they were 1 provision.

In this subpart, relevant trustees, for a protocol, means the trustees of a settlement trust to whom the protocol may be or has been issued.

Each responsible Minister—

The responsible Minister may amend or cancel a protocol at the initiative of—

The responsible Minister may amend or cancel a protocol only after consulting, and having particular regard to the views of, the relevant trustees.

Protocols do not restrict—

The Crown must comply with a protocol while it is in force.

If the Crown fails, without good cause, to comply with a protocol, the relevant trustees may, subject to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, enforce the protocol.

Despite subsection (2), damages or any form of monetary compensation are not available as a remedy for a failure by the Crown to comply with a protocol.

To avoid doubt,—

A conservation protocol does not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to,—

A fisheries protocol does not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, assets or other property rights (including in respect of fish, aquatic life, and seaweed) held, managed, or administered under any of the following enactments:

A minerals protocol does not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, Crown-owned minerals.

A taonga tūturu protocol does not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, taonga tūturu.

A summary of the terms of a conservation protocol must be noted in the conservation documents affecting the conservation protocol area for that protocol.

The noting of a conservation protocol is—

In this section, conservation document means a conservation management plan, conservation management strategy, freshwater fisheries management plan, or national park management plan.

A summary of the terms of a fisheries protocol must be noted in fisheries plans affecting the fisheries protocol area for that protocol.

The noting of a fisheries protocol is—

In this section, fisheries plan means a plan approved or amended under section 11A of the Fisheries Act 1996.

A summary of the terms of a minerals protocol must be noted in—

The noting of a minerals protocol is—

In this section, minerals programme has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

In this Act, statutory acknowledgement—

In this subpart,—

The Crown acknowledges the statements of association and the statements of coastal values.

The only purposes of the statutory acknowledgement are—

On and from the effective date, a relevant consent authority must have regard to the statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in deciding, under section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991, whether the relevant trustees are affected persons in relation to an activity within, adjacent to, or directly affecting the statutory area and for which an application for a resource consent has been made.

Subsection (1) does not limit the obligations of a relevant consent authority under the Resource Management Act 1991.

On and from the effective date, the Environment Court must have regard to the statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in deciding, under section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991, whether the relevant trustees are persons who have an interest in proceedings that is greater than the interest that the general public has in respect of an application for a resource consent for activities within, adjacent to, or directly affecting the statutory area.

Subsection (1) does not limit the obligations of the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act 1991.

If, on or after the effective date, an application is made under section 44, 56, or 61 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 for an authority to undertake an activity that will or may modify or destroy an archaeological site within a statutory area,—

In this section, archaeological site has the meaning given in section 6 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

On and from the effective date, each relevant consent authority must attach information recording the statutory acknowledgement to all statutory plans that wholly or partly cover a statutory area.

The information attached to a statutory plan must include—

The attachment of information to a statutory plan under this section is for the purpose of public information only and, unless adopted by the relevant consent authority as part of the statutory plan, the information is not—

Each relevant consent authority must, for a period of 20 years starting on the effective date, provide the following to the relevant trustees for each resource consent application for an activity within, adjacent to, or directly affecting a statutory area:

The information provided in a summary of an application must be the same as would be given to an affected person by limited notification under section 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991, or as may be agreed between the relevant trustees and the relevant consent authority.

A summary of an application must be provided under subsection (1)(a)—

A copy of a notice of an application must be provided under subsection (1)(b) no later than 10 working days after the day on which the consent authority receives the notice.

This section does not affect a relevant consent authority’s obligation,—

The relevant trustees and any member of the relevant iwi may, as evidence of the iwi’s association with a statutory area, cite the statutory acknowledgement that relates to that area in submissions to, and in proceedings before, a relevant consent authority, the Environmental Protection Authority or a board of inquiry under Part 6AA of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Environment Court, or Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga concerning activities within, adjacent to, or directly affecting the statutory area.

The content of a statement of association or statement of coastal values is not, by virtue of the statutory acknowledgement, binding as fact on—

However, the bodies and persons specified in subsection (2) may take the statutory acknowledgement into account.

To avoid doubt,—

The relevant trustees may waive the right to be provided with summaries, and copies of notices, of resource consent applications under section 44 in relation to a statutory area.

The relevant trustees may waive the right to have a relevant consent authority, the Environment Court, or Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga have regard to the statutory acknowledgement under sections 40 to 42 in relation to the coastal statutory area.

Rights must be waived by written notice to the relevant consent authority, the Environment Court, or Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga stating—

An obligation under this subpart does not apply to the extent that the corresponding right has been waived under this section.

Deeds of recognition must be issued to the trustees of the settlement trust of an iwi in respect of the statutory areas with which the iwi has an association as listed in Schedule 1, except the areas referred to as—

The Minister of Conservation and the Director-General must issue a deed of recognition for the relevant statutory areas administered by the Department of Conservation.

The Commissioner of Crown Lands must issue a deed of recognition for the relevant statutory areas administered by the Commissioner.

A deed of recognition must be issued in the form set out in part 3 of the documents schedule of the relevant deed of settlement.

The person or people who issue a deed of recognition to trustees may amend the deed, but only with the written consent of the trustees.

If any part of the statutory acknowledgement applies to a river or stream (including a tributary), that part of the acknowledgement—

If any part of a deed of recognition applies to a river or stream (including a tributary), that part of the deed—

The statutory acknowledgement and the deeds of recognition do not affect, and must not be taken into account by, a person exercising a power or performing a function or duty under legislation or a bylaw.

A person, in considering a matter or making a decision or recommendation under legislation or a bylaw, must not give greater or lesser weight to the association of the relevant iwi with a statutory area than that person would give if there were no statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition for the statutory area.

Subsection (2) does not limit subsection (1).

This section is subject to—

The statutory acknowledgement and the deeds of recognition do not affect the lawful rights or interests of a person who is not a party to a deed of settlement.

This section is subject to the other provisions of this subpart.

The statutory acknowledgement and the deeds of recognition do not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, a statutory area.

This section is subject to the other provisions of this subpart.

This section amends the Resource Management Act 1991.

In Schedule 11, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order “Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Act 2014”.

In this Act, overlay classification—

In this subpart,—

Each site described in Schedule 2 is declared to be subject to the overlay classification.

The Crown acknowledges the statements of iwi values of the relevant iwi in relation to the overlay sites.

The only purposes of the overlay classification are—

The relevant trustees and the Minister of Conservation may agree on and publicise protection principles that are intended to prevent—

The protection principles set out in paragraph 4.1 of part 1 of the documents schedule of a deed of settlement are to be treated as having been agreed by the relevant trustees and the Minister of Conservation.

The relevant trustees and the Minister of Conservation may agree in writing to any amendments to the protection principles.

When the New Zealand Conservation Authority or a Conservation Board considers or approves a conservation management strategy, conservation management plan, or national park management plan in relation to an overlay site, it must have particular regard to—

Before approving a conservation management strategy, conservation management plan, or national park management plan in relation to an overlay site, the New Zealand Conservation Authority or a Conservation Board must—

If the relevant trustees advise the New Zealand Conservation Authority in writing that they have significant concerns about a draft conservation management strategy in relation to an overlay site, the New Zealand Conservation Authority must, before approving the strategy, give the trustees an opportunity to make submissions in relation to those concerns.

The application of the overlay classification to an overlay site must be noted in any conservation management strategy, conservation management plan, or national park management plan affecting the site.

The noting of the overlay classification under subsection (1)—

The Minister of Conservation must notify the following in the Gazette:

The Director-General may notify in the Gazette any action (including any specified action) taken or intended to be taken under section 63 or 64.

The Director-General must take action in relation to the protection principles that relate to an overlay site, including the specified actions.

The Director-General retains complete discretion to determine the method and extent of the action to be taken.

The Director-General must notify the relevant trustees in writing of any action intended to be taken.

The Director-General may initiate an amendment to a conservation management strategy, conservation management plan, or national park management plan to incorporate objectives relating to the protection principles that relate to an overlay site.

The Director-General must consult any relevant Conservation Board before initiating an amendment under subsection (1).

An amendment initiated under subsection (1) is an amendment for the purposes of section 17I(1) to (3) of the Conservation Act 1987 or section 46(1) to (4) of the National Parks Act 1980, as the case may be.

The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation, make regulations for 1 or more of the following purposes:

Regulations under this section are secondary legislation (see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements).

The Minister of Conservation may make bylaws for 1 or more of the following purposes:

Bylaws under this section are secondary legislation (see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements).

This section applies if the overlay classification applies to any land in—

The overlay classification does not affect—

The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation, declare that all or part of an overlay site is no longer subject to the overlay classification.

The Minister of Conservation must not make a recommendation for the purposes of subsection (1) unless—